2-3 times a week on the AP wire is not a lot. Illegal use of guns is so widespread that the AP probably doesn't even find it newsworthy. Do they even report gun crimes other than the super sensational acts? I doubt it.

Once when a rape, murder or other violent crime is stopped by a firearm in the hands of a victim is enough for me. If you're point is that the bad outweighs the good, your only rational argument from this point is a total ban and confiscation.

Originally Posted by captnjak

You say the current gun control laws don't work. That is not a reason to give up. What about making them stronger so they do work? Wouldn't that be the logical move?

I didn't say the don't work, but I think we agree they aren't completely effective. Strengthening the ones we have and actually enforcing them and treating them with the seriousness they deserve would be a damn good start.

Originally Posted by captnjak

I do agree with those who say we need to lock up the criminals who use guns. Lock em up and throw away the key. But that only works for the ones we catch. How many times do they use that gun before they're caught.

Right there with you. We'll never know the stats on those not caught.

Originally Posted by captnjak

Let's face it. It's just too damn easy for the wrong people to get guns in this country.

Again, we agree, but how do we keep them out of these people hands? Enforce the laws we have. More laws for criminals to break is not the answer, those gang-bangers carrying guns could care less about violating some silly possession charge compared to the acts they have or will carry out. The messed up white kid on the internet will find a way to carry out his plan, through an illegal transaction or by utilizing another weapon readily available on the web. I'm all for strengthening the rules we have, holding gun owners more accountable for the whereabouts of their firearms and even registration, but I fear in the end, these few squirters will still get through the cracks and we'll be one step away from Draconian rules that punish law abiding citizens more than ever.

Originally Posted by captnjak

Free speech comes with restrictions.
Commerce comes with restrictions.
Freedom of religion comes with restrictions.
These are all constitutionally protected just as gun ownership is. No reason why the right to bear arms should not come with restrictions.

There are already restrictions, most of which violate the "shall not be infringed" section. Making rules and laws that tie one hand behind law abiding citizen backs while failing to see criminals just ignore the laws they choose is plain nonsense, if we want o make it better it's time to demand the current laws be enforced strictly and sentences carry the weight that our society now places on firearms infractions.

I received this in an email, seems fitting:
"We are advised to NOT judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics. Funny how that works."

hy·poc·ri·sy
hiˈpäkrisē
noun
1.
the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.

I like how SC wants one constitutional right (voting) to occur unfettered without those pesky photo IDs from getting in the way v. his demand that (potential) gun owners jump through hoops to exercise that specific constitutional right.

If mental illness was the only factor I would agree with you. There are others.

OK, so lets see your list of proposed "irresponsible acts" that in your eyes should preclude firearms ownership or access? Let's dispense with the felonies as that's already on the books and taken far too lightly!

I like how SC wants one constitutional right (voting) to occur unfettered without those pesky photo IDs from getting in the way v. his demand that (potential) gun owners jump through hoops to exercise that specific constitutional right.

I'm more than happy to discuss Voter ID laws on a separate thread. I thought that would be obvious, then I remembered I was dealing with you.

Originally Posted by RFDACM02

OK, so lets see your list of proposed "irresponsible acts" that in your eyes should preclude firearms ownership or access? Let's dispense with the felonies as that's already on the books and taken far too lightly!

Just how would you determine if the man who brought a gun to the door and found a girl scout was unwarranted? Due process? Did he actually point it at her? Brandish it in any manner? I agree being paranoid to the point that you swing open your door, without looking first and have a gun in your hand should be a dis-qualifier, but it's easy to give short examples that lack any other factors, it's much harder to have a real discussion on actual potential rules.

I think maybe he'll be disqualified under the "Felon" title, but keep being childish about the issue and not bring any actual solutions to the thread, it shows the depth of thought you've put into the issue you feel so passionate about.

I think those are all good examples of individuals who should be denied access to firearms after a background check.

Hey I get it. Now I too can be a progressive liberal, all I have to say is: "I'm against mass murder". I don't have to offer any details, solutions or explain any of my ideas because everyone should know my heart's in the right place and at the end of the day that's what stops crime.

That first one sounds like a situation that occurred in Shreveport a couple of weeks ago .... Armed 16 y.o male broke into a home and the 65 y.o Female shot and killed him with a gun she took from the safe after he demanded she open it.

A couple of days later the parents had the nerve to call the media to tell them how wrong this woman was for "taking their child away from them".

Hey I get it. Now I too can be a progressive liberal, all I have to say is: "I'm against mass murder". I don't have to offer any details, solutions or explain any of my ideas because everyone should know my heart's in the right place and at the end of the day that's what stops crime.

... Or be consistent by saying that's it's fine to put strings and conditions on one constitutional right but not another.

Great. They would not be prevented from owning a firearm after a universal background check.

Originally Posted by RFDACM02

Hey I get it. Now I too can be a progressive liberal, all I have to say is: "I'm against mass murder". I don't have to offer any details, solutions or explain any of my ideas because everyone should know my heart's in the right place and at the end of the day that's what stops crime.

I'm not going to put words in your mouth. If that's what you believe, I'm okay with it. Personally I believe the issue deserves more scrutiny and examination than your alternative which is nothing.

My posts reflect my views and opinions, not the organization I work for or my IAFF local. Some of which they may not agree. I.A.C.O.J. member
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788Elevator Rescue Information

So just maybe, those asinine teachers and school administrators should not focus their attention on 6 year olds playing cops and robbers, using their finger as a gun.
Instead they may want to do a little research, they claim to be educators for cripes sake...
From the American Psychological Association: http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/warning-signs.aspx#

Its an absolute joke its acceptable to profile a serial killer(because it works), but when it comes to juveniles and terrorists, the PC crowd strokes...

My posts reflect my views and opinions, not the organization I work for or my IAFF local. Some of which they may not agree. I.A.C.O.J. member
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788Elevator Rescue Information

My posts reflect my views and opinions, not the organization I work for or my IAFF local. Some of which they may not agree. I.A.C.O.J. member
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788Elevator Rescue Information

Which has nothing to do with universal background checks.....check and mate.

It has EVERYTHING to do with background checks. If illegal, police enforced, disarming of legal gun owners can, and does, already occur all background checks does is open the door to record keeping to make confiscation eaiser. No thank you, there is enough invasion into our privacy with telephone and internet spying and drones flying over head already.

You seem so eager to surrender your freedoms, fortunately there are many of us that see this all for what it is. One step leading to another to another and so on. Your stance is ridiculous is that you want a national background check but then you want local judges to be able to eliminate any penalty at all for use of a gun in a crime due to local discretion. Talk about ludicrous.

Yet you oppose standardized national sentencing...so how do you support what SPFDRum said? I said no plea bargaining and you jumped all over me talking about local jurisdiction having control over sentencing.

You seem so eager to surrender your freedoms, fortunately there are many of us that see this all for what it is. One step leading to another to another and so on. Your stance is ridiculous is that you want a national background check but then you want local judges to be able to eliminate any penalty at all for use of a gun in a crime due to local discretion. Talk about ludicrous.

Those "details" need to be addressed before any type of a universal background system is implemented.

The simple fact is that until we fully determine in very specific ways what the disqualifiers will be, and the legislation is written so that no additional disqualifiers can be added via administrative fiat once it is passed and implemented, there will be suspicion that additional disqualifiers will be snuck in which will erode the ability for Americans to "pass" the background check.